Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

Then why has he not produced the Evidence?

Me thinks either the Evidence does not exist or it does not back up the claims he is making.

Compare his actions to those of say Edward Snowden who produced his evidence first.

All this posturing and Lawyering without producing anything to back up what he is saying - sounds like an empty can rattling to me....

The documents are in the possession of Congressman Posey.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c454642...easearch-fraud

[TheDemonLord]

The documents are in the possession of Congressman Posey.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c454642...easearch-fraud

Is he the Public Domain?

No?

Sounds like perhaps they don't as conclusively prove the claims he's making then, doesn't it.

[Katman]

Is he the Public Domain?

No?

Sounds like perhaps they don't as conclusively prove the claims he's making then, doesn't it.

Or perhaps they're going through the channels that they think will best ensure a Congressional Inquiry.

[TheDemonLord]

Or perhaps they're going through the channels that they think will best chance of lucrative Talk show deals, Exclusive interview deals and a book contract to ensure a nice cozy retirement

Fixed for accuracy.

And besides - I'm pretty sure Snowden's way of doing things (you know, present your evidence first) has generated quite a few Inquiries, in multiple countries.

[Katman]

Fixed for accuracy.

And besides - I'm pretty sure Snowden's way of doing things (you know, present your evidence first) has generated quite a few Inquiries, in multiple countries.

Your unflappable faith in the pharmaceutical industry is matched only by Ed's faith in his religion.

[TheDemonLord]

Your unflappable faith in the pharmaceutical industry is matched only by Ed's faith in his religion.

What Faith?

I'm pretty sure I've said that until the Evidence is presented, his words don't mean spit - which is the very Opposite of Faith.


You, on the other hand believe his word because it matches your pre-existing beliefs (the very definition of Faith).

I am also making a judgement on his actions that I think his motives aren't as altruistic as he claims and the fact that he didn't release his evidence first, means it probably doesn't back up what he is claiming it does - I'm able to make this judgement because when compared to actual whistleblowers who had actual evidence that actually backed up the claims they made - they presented the evidence FIRST.

[Katman]

What Faith?

I'm pretty sure I've said that until the Evidence is presented, his words don't mean spit - which is the very Opposite of Faith.

I said faith in the pharmaceutical industry - not faith in Dr Thompson's documents.

Shitforbrains.

[TheDemonLord]

I said faith in the pharmaceutical industry - not faith in Dr Thompson's documents.

Shitforbrains.

I know what you said, the problem was that it doesn't follow the current line of discussion:

Dr Thompson has Evidence for X > He Hasn't presented his Evidence therefore Claims are dismissed > His Lawyer has the Evidence > His Lawyer is not the public Domain > He is doing it through the proper channels > He's doing it in a manner to maximize the amount of revenue he can garner > You have faith in Pharmaceutical companies > Lol Wut?

I know that English, Comprehension, in fact any form of intellectual endeavor is clearly a challenge for you, and I know that anytime someone actual does something logical, you automatically call them Autistic (the irony of the century being the one who is clearly an idiot trying to impugn the intellectual capabilities of everyone else) - but even you must realise that your comments are out of context given the current line of discussion.

[Katman]

Dr Thompson has Evidence for X > He Hasn't presented his Evidence therefore Claims are dismissed > His Lawyer has the Evidence > His Lawyer is not the public Domain > He is doing it through the proper channels > He's doing it in a manner to maximize the amount of revenue he can garner > You have faith in Pharmaceutical companies > Lol Wut?

Ignoring anything that calls into question the integrity of the pharmaceutical industry = unflappable faith in the pharmaceutical industry.

[TheDemonLord]

Ignoring anything that calls into question the integrity of the pharmaceutical industry = unflappable faith in the pharmaceutical industry.

Close - but not quite:

Ignoring idiots who call into question the integrity of the pharmaceutical industry without valid scientific or other evidence = Skepticism and not being a nut job conspiracy theorist contributing to the death of children by preventable diseases.

There's a difference - see if you can understand the difference (I doubt very much)

[pritch]

For some reason which I can't explain I have just read the last umpty ump pages of this thread.
I have just one question. Why has this thread not gone pink?

[Katman]

For some reason which I can't explain I have just read the last umpty ump pages of this thread.
I have just one question. Why has this thread not gone pink?

Is that how it's supposed to work, is it?

Any opinion that you disagree with should be sent to PD?

That's the sort of childish shit I'd normally expect from bogan.

[Drew]

I have just learned of Wakefield and his study with mice. Where he used the wrong type of mice which are bred to get cancer when ya breath in them.

The cunt is a fucken crook. Anyone putting any faith in him is a fucken moron, and deserves to die of measles, mumps, or rubella.

[Katman]

I have just learned of Wakefield and his study with mice. Where he used the wrong type of mice which are bred to get cancer when ya breath in them.

Was it like this one?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0616140723.htm

Because if it is, Andrew Wakefield established a link between gastrointestinal problems and autism back in 1998.

[Katman]

Has anybody given any thought to the fact that since the year 2000 the stats have gone from 1 in 150 kids being diagnosed with autism to 1 in 50?

Back in the 70's it was in the region of 1 in 10,000.